Paul Samuelson, R.I.P.

Oh, my. Paul Samuelson has died. He had a long, good life; yet he will be sorely missed.

It’s hard to convey the full extent of Samuelson’s greatness. Most economists would love to have written even one seminal paper — a paper that fundamentally changes the way people think about some issue. Samuelson wrote dozens: from international trade to finance to growth theory to speculation to well, just about everything, underlying much of what we know is a key Samuelson paper that set the agenda for generations of scholars.

And he was a wonderfully down-to-earth human being besides. For a number of years I shared an office suite with him and Bob Solow; he always had time to talk, and was completely without airs.

One of the things Robin Wells and I did when writing our principles of economics textbook was to acquire and study a copy of the original, 1948 edition of Samuelson’s textbook. It’s an extraordinary work: lucid, accessible without being condescending, and deeply insightful. His discussions of speculation and monetary policy are particularly striking: they run quite contrary to much of what was being taught just a few years ago, but they ring completely true in the current crisis. And he was, of course, the man who truly brought Keynesian economics to America — a contribution that now seems more relevant than ever.

Let us honor the memory of a truly great man.

Update: The view from my home office, just last week:

DESCRIPTION

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Satish December 13, 2009 · 1:33 pm

I am not an economist, but my first economics lessons were from his textbook as a freshman at a prestigious engineering school in India. I thought many times to switch to economics during that class and reading his book, but the rigid educational structure made it impossible. His textbook was very accessible, deeply insightful and is actually a page turner (as much as an economics textbook or any textbook can be).

He indeed is a great man. RIP, Prof. Samuelson.

Nylund December 13, 2009 · 1:54 pm

When I was in grad school, economics started to feel very compartmentalized. I studied trade in this class, IO here, macro there, and as time progressed, the subsections seemed to drift further and further apart from each other until it got difficult to even understand what it meant to be an “economist” since I knew so many people who called themselves that yet spent their days doing very different things, using different tools, different maths, different software, and different logic. Yet, no matter what divergent branch I was studying there always seemed to be a point where I professor would make us study a seminal paper on the subject by Paul Samuelson. I can remember thinking time and time again, “Wow, its Samuelson again! This guy is everywhere.”

His contributions cannot be overstated. And even just a few months ago he was giving incredibly lucid and insightful interviews about the current state of the economy while well into his nineties.

Lloyd Little December 13, 2009 · 2:10 pm

Condolences Paul to the loss of such a close friend.

You’re right, butter or bread became that much more of a resounding force because of individuals like Paul Samuelson…and I’m sure you’ll make sure his points of view stay just as clear as they need to be…

Thanks!

Smooth Sailing December 13, 2009 · 2:13 pm

94….we should all be so lucky. You must be proud and honored to have known him. Let us hope that the vacume of his loss is filled by someone as equally impressive.

Rich December 13, 2009 · 2:45 pm

A lot of people fortunate to write the standard introductory text for their feild and basically retire on the royalties while letting an underpaid army of students do the periodic updates. Samuelson seems to have kept soldiering onward. I had the text in the 1970s, although it did nothing to mitigate my questioning of academic economics’ basic assumptions. I would up as a psychologist with a heavy does of sociology, instead.

Samuleson may have benefited in the public mind from having a columnist with a similar name, although the orthodoxy of that man and his increasingly unimaginative and irrlevant writing may have also tarnished the Nobel winner’s rep, as well.

Bob December 13, 2009 · 2:51 pm

I was first introduced to Professor Samuelson’s teachings 30 years ago as an economics student in college. Due in no small part to his writing style, I became an avid believer in Keynesian economics and still am. He will be missed.

robob18 December 13, 2009 · 3:01 pm

As you say Dr. K – sad for someone so productive to go; hopefully he took solace that speculative conditions were reverting.

It is a tribute to him (any educator) that those of us who used a Samuelson text in college (though revised and many editions later) are befuddled at the misuse of nomenclature, and lack of clarity coming from some in Washington.

Perhaps some who have never read him and wonder why we are so upset will crack the binding on one of his texts – an excellent remembrance.

Fortunate in life are those who get to be close to great minds and create memories with them.

John Cline December 13, 2009 · 3:27 pm

Oh my. Another of the world’s “Greats” gone. He has passed on so much to the rest of us, and enriched the field of economics and so much else as well. RIP Paul.

Wilhelm Evertz December 13, 2009 · 3:33 pm

Rereading his OP-ED article of October 24, 2009 ‘Heed the Hopeful Science’ in the NYT it seems truly his last will and testament.

Gary Henscheid December 13, 2009 · 4:16 pm

Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw has me doubting the calls for more government spending with his Dec. 12-13th IHT article, “Rethinking the remedy for U.S. ills. In fact, after reading it, I’m wondering why Christina Romer, as Chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, would have pushed through the original $700 billion dollar stimulus, since her own research seems to suggest much better ways to support economic recovery from recession than government spending.
Mankiw states: “According to the Romers, each dollar of tax cuts has historically raised GDP by about $3 – three times the figure used in the administration report.”
He continues: “That estimated impact is also far greater than most estimates of the effects of government spending.
Other recent work supports the Romers’ findings. In a working paper from December 2008, Andrew W. Mountford of the University of London and Harold Uhlig of the University of Chicago apply state-of-the-art statistical tools to U.S. data to compare the effects of deficit-financed spending, deficit-financed tax cuts, and tax-financed spending. They report that “deficit-financed tax cuts work best among these three scenarios to improve G.D.P.””
Mankiw then cites research by his colleagues at Harvard, Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna, and concludes: “The results are striking. Successful stimulus relies almost entirely on cuts in business and income taxes. Failed stimulus relies mostly on increases in government spending.” The problem with government spending, as reported by Olivier Blanchard, currently chief economist at the IMF, and Robert Perotti in Mankiw’s article, is that “both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending. This effect is difficult to reconcile with Keynesian theory.”
“Difficult to reconcile with Keynesian theory”? How about the fact that all of the research (none of which I’ve read) in this article indicates that the $700 billion Keynesian course that the government has already taken has been a tremendous waste? I’d love to hear Paul Samuelson’s rebuttal, but in his absence, I’d settle to hear what Professor Krugman has to say. And I hope he’ll say something, because my confidence in government stimulus spending is now shaken to the core.

Renee December 13, 2009 · 4:16 pm

I took undergrad Macroeconomics in Spring 1977, and fortunately was introduced to Samuelson at that time. Thanks for your tribute to him – good to know that he was a good egg too!

N.S. Palmer December 13, 2009 · 4:31 pm

Beautifully written, Paul. I couldn’t add anything to it. He will be missed, but his insights will continue to help us. In his work, he lives on with us.

I’ve got five volumes of his collected writings, and even those volumes are incomplete. Someday, I’d like to see one of those 1948 editions up close.

Frank A. Adrian December 13, 2009 · 4:47 pm

As one of the many who were assigned his introductory economics text by our Economics professors, I will say that he will be missed. Even for this non-economist, it was one of my favorite textbooks.

Jim Hansen December 13, 2009 · 5:25 pm

In 1969 I was in college majoring in biology. I decided to take a course in economics, which happened to use Paul Samuelson’s textbook. I didn’t know anything about Paul Samuelson, but I marveled at how easy to understand and interesting the textbook was. The end result – I changed my major to economics!

Doug Bevill December 13, 2009 · 5:38 pm

Paul – I am a big fan of yours and Dr Samuelson. He will be missed but through intellectual offspring like you and others that benefited from his genius his legacy and the fruits of his study live on.

We are at a critical juncture as it relates to world economics. History will show that strong social economic policies will bring back jobs in the US and help to stabilize emerging economies which will lead to peace and happiness for us all.

HEB
St. Louis

Goran December 13, 2009 · 5:52 pm

That was a very fitting picture. I still recall first hearing about Paul Samuelson on the first day of high school and being amazed (it took me several years to fully realize his impact on economic science). He will be missed.

Thorstein Veblen December 13, 2009 · 6:09 pm

The sad thing is, Paul Samuelson is irreplaceable and, in fact, unreplaced at MIT.

Daron Acemoglu is no Paul Samuelson. Esther Duflo is no Robert Solow, and Olivier Blanchard is no Rudiger Dornbusch.

Don’t get me wrong, MIT has plenty of economists who can churn out a published paper per month, but the current crop of MIT economists leave something to be desired.

Acemoglu’s grad textbook is a horrific joke. Blanchard’s undergrad Economic textbook is rife w/ errors, grammatical and factual. Samuelson sweat blood when he wrote his textbook, Blanchard looks to have outsourced his to an Indian RA.

//firelarrysummersnow.blogspot.com/

Bob Prentiss December 13, 2009 · 6:18 pm

I remember reading one of Samuelson’s early textbooks and I believe he gave an example of how gambling affects an economy. If I remember correctly, he quoted a study that when gambling was legalized in Great Britain, grocery receipts fell around 30 percent that year, If I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it. Anyone recall that?

ray bans on my face December 13, 2009 · 6:24 pm

I enjoyed learning about Samuelson’s work and contributions while working on my bachelor’s, particularly in my macro and international classes. Truly a genius. R.I.P. Samuelson.

Wesatch December 13, 2009 · 6:40 pm

One of the things Robin Wells and I did when writing our principles of economics textbook was to acquire and study a copy of the original, 1948 edition of Samuelson’s textbook. It’s an extraordinary work

Please send a copy to Bernanke.

Arshad Sherif, M.A., M.Ed. December 13, 2009 · 6:54 pm

We used Paul Samuelson’s classic textbook in my freshman year at Queens College. And Queens College prepared me well for graduate school: I was ready for Nobel laureate Wassily Leontief.

Professor Leontief taught me input-output analysis, a field he pioneered and nurtured. When I was a graduate student at NYU, I took his graduate course in input-output analysis and an advanced seminar in the same field.

Wassily Leontief was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1973, three years after Paul Samuelson.

Reality Based December 13, 2009 · 7:10 pm

Professor Samuelson was most important because he lived in the real world. The Chicago School ideologues who came to dominate in the days after his textbook was God turned the clock back to the days before reason took reality into consideration, instead of cranking out crank fantasy theories from religious assumptions. Samuelson cared about human beings. Caring about human beings should be what economics is about.

tmgodett December 13, 2009 · 7:13 pm

So…..you are clearly of the “a messy desk is a busy desk” persuasion, as opposed to the “a messy desk reflects a messy mind” type. I, too, am of the former.

Have you also observed that members of the latter cannot cope with your messy desk and strive to find ways to force you to straighten it up? Such is life in corporate America; hopefully it is different in Academia.

FWIW, I cannot understand why your projections and policy suggestions/recommendations, spot on for at least the last decade, don’t have a stronger advocate within the administration. What is wrong with these people?

They must be from the messy desk/messy mind philosophy.

…..a little light-heartedness from one still employed in the abyss we call the auto industry.

Rufus the doofus December 13, 2009 · 7:17 pm

For those of us who have later editions of Samuelson’s textbook, is there any material you would like to recommend or warn about?

Edrie Irvine December 13, 2009 · 7:20 pm

Anyone who claims an undergraduate degree in Economics in this country must have fond or frightening memories of nights spent poring over Samuelson’s Econ 101 text. He guided me through my undergraduate years at Michigan, and well into my time in graduate studies as well. What I know now, what I understand, is due to his ability to make the ‘dismal science’ accessible and yes, for some of us, even enjoyable.